HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

ddeanjohnson said:

I testified against the House-passed HB 1302 [it's not HB 1032] at the March 23 Senate hearing. I agree that the "emergency evaluation" process established in Health--General Title 10 works well, where there is clear evidence of a substantial mental disturbance. However, supporters of HB 1302 point out that there are cases in which grave mental disturbance does not exist or is not demonstrable, but in which there is other substantial evidence of grave risk (genuine threats of violence, for example). Moreover, the dynamic is such that I believe it is highly likely that a firearms-specific bill is going to be enacted.

Therefore, I think that there would be much merit to an amendment to give a gun owner who is targeted with an "interim extreme risk prevention order" the optional right to immediately submit himself to the Title 10 "emergency evaluation" confinement, on a "voluntary" basis, until he gets an adversarial (both sides) hearing before a judge, with his guns staying undisturbed at home in the meantime. At the hearing, the judge would be presented not just with a petitioner's claims -- which might be malicious, subjective, deluded, or mistaken -- but with evidence put forward by the gun owner and his counsel. The judge would have the benefit of the emergency evaluation, but would be able to consider all other evidence as well -- including the respondent's history and demeanor, evidence that the petitioner is deluded or malicious, etc.

Yes, even with such an option added, there would remain substantial potential for abuse, and constitutional problems. But giving the targeted gun own such an option would reduce the incentive for abuse, and the amount of abuse, and the damage done to persons targeted by petitioners who are deluded or malicious.

This revision "ought to" be acceptable to supporters of the bill, because the targeted gun owner who chooses to submit to the evaluation-confinement process would be separated from all guns (not just the seized guns) until a judge sorts it out. This revision "ought to" be acceptable to the mental-health groups, because the gun owner would be submitting to evaluation on a "voluntary" basis (no long-term firearms disability would be triggered merely by choosing this option), and gun seizure would remain the outcome if the applicable standard of proof is met at the adversarial hearing, regardless of the respondent's mental-health status. I say "ought to," because logic may not always prevail on these matters.

I proposed such an amendment in my testimony before the Senate committee on March 23 (which is attached), and I have legislative amendment language that I believe would accomplish the purposes which I have described.

Click to expand...

As you may know I am an A-ranked NRA legislator.

​​​​​​​
In the eight years that I have served as your delegate, I have co-sponsored more than 50 pro-gun pieces of legislation and voted against the gun-grabbing left to fight for your rights as a gun owner. I am a lifetime NRA member and believe the Constitution guarantees me the right to protect my family.

Recently one of my opponents in the Frederick County Executive race has used an illegal Facebook Page to distort my record for political gain. I am here to set the record straight.

HB1302


This year in Annapolis most NRA-ranked Republicans voted for a bill that many, including President Trump, V.P. Pence, and Governor Hogan believe is common sense. The bill is called Public Safety - Extreme Risk Prevention Orders or the "Red Flag" bill.

The bill allows firearms to be removed from the possession of a person who has demonstrated extreme risk to themselves or another. The bill establishes due process and will give law enforcement a tool they need to prevent an unthinkably violent act. I stand by my vote.

If we want to protect our Second Amendment rights, we cannot pretend there aren't those among us who should NOT have access to a firearm. The mentally ill cannot be armed!

To the left are some of the pro-gun pieces of legislation that I have co-sponsored over the past eight years. To say that I am pro-Second Amendment is an understatement.

In your service,
Kathy Afzali
Delegate &
Candidate for Frederick County Executive

Click to expand...

KevinK said:

Email from Kathy Afzali. She stands by her (yes) vote.

And no, it does not establish due process.

Click to expand...

KevinK said:

Email from Kathy Afzali. She stands by her (yes) vote.

And no, it does not establish due process.

Click to expand...

Stoveman said:

Shevis getting hammered on FB and has since doubled down on stupid.

Clearly in the wrong vector on the hot/crazy matrix.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

willtill said:

"If" it came to that... that's one way; of an interesting way to prove a negative.



.

Click to expand...

rseymorejr said:

Lights and sirens went off in my head when I read "common sense"

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

Did I read the Afzali letter correctly? Voting for a bill NRA testified against and she is touting an A+ NRA rating and happy about it. Where are the morals?

Click to expand...

KevinK said:

Email from Kathy Afzali. She stands by her (yes) vote.

And no, it does not establish due process.

Click to expand...

zoostation said:

So Kathy Azfali feels, and I quote, "The mentally ill cannot be armed!" Really? She may want to explain that bigoted statement to the MH lobby. First, it demonizes an entire class of people as being dangerous, when in fact statistics show they are less so than the general population. Mental illness, as most even remotely educated people know, encompasses a wide depth and breadth of conditions. Someone with some mild depression or anxiety is not someone who needs to disarmed by the state.

Click to expand...

East2West said:

So having to voluntarily enter yourself into the mental health system would be considered a win? I can only imagine the headaches that would come afterwards. How would doing that effect clearances and future gun purchases. No thanks I'd rather not have my name in the database. Espescially when they decide in 10 years that voluntary evaluations make you ineligible to own guns. What a sad state we're in where adding that amendment is being considered a way to make the bill better.

Here's to hoping our emailing and PP's street presence get this billed shelved. Each and every one of us gun owners will be a target if not.

Click to expand...

pcfixer said:

I just talked to Delegate Kathy Afzali. According to her this bill has been amended to include more personal protection, a due process clause and to appear
before a judge before any confiscation of firearms. Also a mental health evaluation. I think too the petitioner should be evaluated.
I'll get the email from her office later...maybe Saturday morning and post it.
Standby.

Click to expand...